Appeal of St. John's Church
| Decision Date | 03 February 1910 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Appeal of ST. JOHN'S CHURCH. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.
Application by the Selectmen of the Town of Watertown to re-establish the boundary lines of a highway. From a judgment modifying and affirming the selectmen's decision, the corporation of St. John's Church appeals. Affirmed.
William Kennedy and John H. Cassidy, for appellant St. John's Church. Terrence F. Carmody, for appellee Town of Watertown.
The original layout of Strait's turnpike was established by the General Assembly in November, 1796, and provided for a road from the courthouse in New Haven to the courthouse in Litchfield, passing through the town of Watertown, which road has become the main street of the town. In October, 1797, the Strait's Turnpike Company was incorporated by the General Assembly for the purpose of establishing and keeping in repair Strait's turnpike. This it did until October, 1854. Ever since this latter date the town of Watertown has had charge of this road as a public highway, and has from time to time improved and kept it in repair. The 1796 layout was run by means of a compass and described by courses and distances relating to certain monuments such as trees, stones, highway lines, etc. Prior to April, 1908, the actual boundaries had become lost or uncertain. On April 3, 1908, pursuant to the provisions of section 2083 of the General Statutes of 1902, certain proprietors of land adjoining this highway applied to the selectmen of Watertown to re-establish the boundary lines of this highway. This application was made at the request of the selectmen. Thereupon the selectmen caused to be made a map of the highway in question, and also caused proper notices to be given, and, in accordance with these notices, met and heard all interested parties under oath who presented themselves. A decision in relation to the boundary lines of the highway was made, which, after due notice, was recorded in the records of the town of Watertown. The highway as originally laid out was 4 rods or 66 feet wide, excepting in certain places indicated in the survey, where the highway as originally laid out was wider than 66 feet. The selectmen in relocating the lines of the highway ran them at least 66 feet apart. Prior to the layout of Strait's highway through Watertown there existed a public highway along what is now the portion of the main street in question. The layout of Strait's highway was an adoption of this old highway with such additions as were necessary to make it at least four rods wide. The line of the original 1790 survey was made on the east side of the highway. It is now impossible to locate that line by following the courses and distances given in the original report because of the change in the magnetic north and the lack of original monuments referred to in the survey. The width, general direction, and length of courses of the highway and ownership of adjoining property, as set forth in the survey of 1796, were the only portions of that survey which were or might be of assistance to the selectmen in attempting to relocate the lines of the highway, and these portions were insufficient data from which to accurately run the survey. They therefore, in addition to the evidence taken under oath at the hearings, resorted to such other methods of investigation as occurred to them for the purpose of relocating said lines. They examined the premises involved, talked with old residents of the locality, and examined town and other records. They found that it was impossible to exercise their judgment as to what lines coincided with the original lines of the survey otherwise than by the use of all the information obtainable from the original survey, and from a consideration of the present and past conditions and use of the highway. Four of the proprietors of the land adjoining the highway, within the points affected by said decision, appealed to the superior court from the decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Lyme, SC 19726
..." § 13a–39 sets forth a procedure for defining the boundaries of a highway which have become lost or uncertain. Appeal of St. John's Church , 83 Conn. 101, 106, 75 A. 88 (1910). After hearing all parties interested, the town selectmen are required to reach a decision defining the lines and ......
-
Montanaro v. Aspetuck Land Trust, Inc.
...and the continuance of the street will be presumed until satisfactory evidence is produced to rebut it.” Appeal of St. John's Church, 83 Conn. 101, 105, 75 A. 88 (1910). We reiterate that abandonment is a question of fact. Pizzuto v. Newington, supra, 174 Conn. at 285, 386 A.2d 238. On the ......
-
Pilot's Mall, LLC v. Christian Associates, No. CV01-0166193S (CT 10/12/2005)
...is on the party trying to establish abandonment, and the continuance of the highway is to be presumed in each case. Appeal of St. John's Church, 83 Conn. 101, 105 (1910). Thus, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving this issue. The Plaintiff has provided no evidence on this issue. Further,......
-
Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Lyme
...in 1910, this court addressed the predecessor to § 13a–39, General Statutes (1902 Rev.) § 2083, in the case of Appeal of St. John's Church, 83 Conn. 101, 75 A. 88 (1910). In that case, proprietors of land adjoining the Strait's Turnpike applied to the selectmen of Watertown to reestablish c......